Using aggregate data to estimate the standard error of a treatment–covariate interaction in an individual patient data meta‐analysis

Subgroup analyses are important to medical research because they shed light on the heterogeneity of treatment effectts. A treatment-covariate interaction in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis is the most reliable means to estimate how a subgroup factor modifies a treatment's effectiveness. However, owing to the challenges in collecting participant data, an approach based on aggregate data might be the only option. In these circumstances, it would be useful to assess the relative efficiency and power loss of a subgroup analysis without patient-level data. We present methods that use aggregate data to estimate the standard error of an IPD meta-analysis' treatment-covariate interaction for regression models of a continuous or dichotomous patient outcome. Numerical studies indicate that the estimators have good accuracy. An application to a previously published meta-regression illustrates the practical utility of the methodology.

[1]  Jeff Gill,et al.  The Multilevel Model Framework , 2013 .

[2]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Evidence synthesis combining individual patient data and aggregate data: a systematic review identified current practice and possible methods. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Paul Landais,et al.  Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  L. Stewart,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses? , 1994, BMJ.

[6]  Carl van Walraven,et al.  Individual patient meta-analysis--rewards and challenges. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  T. Poynard,et al.  Beta-adrenergic-antagonist drugs in the prevention of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis and esophageal varices. An analysis of data and prognostic factors in 589 patients from four randomized clinical trials. Franco-Italian Multicenter Study Group. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  A Whitehead,et al.  Meta‐analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  S. Greenland Ecologic versus individual-level sources of bias in ecologic estimates of contextual health effects. , 2001, International journal of epidemiology.

[10]  Harold I Feldman,et al.  Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  J F Tierney,et al.  A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  L. Stewart,et al.  Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  H Goldstein,et al.  A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  S. Lagakos The challenge of subgroup analyses--reporting without distorting. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  R. Kempton,et al.  The application of REML in clinical trials. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  P C Lambert,et al.  A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  I Olkin,et al.  Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  M C Simmonds,et al.  Covariate heterogeneity in meta‐analysis: Criteria for deciding between meta‐regression and individual patient data , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  R. Wolfinger,et al.  Generalized linear mixed models a pseudo-likelihood approach , 1993 .

[21]  C. Walraven Individual patient meta-analysis--rewards and challenges. , 2010 .

[22]  N. Breslow,et al.  Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models , 1993 .

[23]  Christina Gloeckner,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics With S , 2003 .

[24]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta‐analysis , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  D L Sackett,et al.  On the need for evidence-based medicine. , 1995, Therapie.

[26]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model , 2005 .